Yes, this has to do with the AMA and modeling. It simply opens up more freedoms to those who wish to purchase, and enjoy a quad copter to make some practical use out of, rather than circle flying with a quarter-scale at the local club:

Now, let's wait and see what the FAA does. If our friend with the drone prevails, then I say we're good to go, and those big huge hunks of metal you see at the airport will, for the most part, soon become obsolete!

littlecrankshaf

03-07-2014 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
(Post 11753507)

Yes, this has to do with the AMA and modeling. It simply opens up more freedoms to those who wish to purchase, and enjoy a quad copter to make some practical use out of, rather than circle flying with a quarter-scale at the local club:

Thanks for posting that NFS...needed something good to help my spirits.

[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #F5F5FF"]For the moment that is really good news... that the charges were dropped... but be fore warned, the FAA will be as any women scorned and resulting long term ramifications will be with a fervent vengeance.

A small battle has been won but the ever greater erosion of personal freedoms continues. Freedom is a continuous fight, every single day... and "freedom fighters" are losing more ground every single day to those that can't understand the concept of true personal responsibility and real accountability.

The precepts of the "need more laws" complacent ignorant zealot type, that is killing our freedoms now, is that more laws, rules, and regulations are always the answer...as their position can easily and effectively rationalized from the standpoint of safety...and once the "safety card" has been played any contrary argument is easily deemed impotent...even at the expense to freedom...and they know it... and the "droids" couldn't care less how it impacts freedom as long as they can maintain their errant perception that "authoritative oversight" will cause them less work or worry. They just want their happy meal at any cost...they really don't want to be bothered by all the work that true freedom presents...just much easier to be led like the sheeple they are.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

JW0311

03-07-2014 08:47 PM

My Fire Department is considering using a quad copter equipped with a Go Pro camera for use during wildland fires and rescue operations. Having a birds eye view for the purpose of making tactical decisions is something we think may be helpful. The images would be used for real time operational decisions and for training. Would this be considered commercial use? Would the firefighter using the copter need to be an AMA member? Would we need permission from the land owner if we were operating on private property? This would be in a special fire district. Would we be considered a government agency and would that make any difference? Got to fly it the other day during some testing. Kind of fun. Definitely a different type of flying. We are aware that this is a hot topic but the real time images, we believe, could be life saving. Should we be expecting a visit from the FAA? I'm not sure that comparing what we want to do and what this gentleman did are the same but i have to wonder none the less. I noted while reading that the FAA is asking government and police agencies to advise them (ask permission) before testing. Does our use differ in their eyes? The images gathered would not be use for any purpose other than training and tactical decisions during any fire-ground operations.

James

NorfolkSouthern

03-07-2014 09:46 PM

It is unfortunate, but the FAA is going for an appeal, and there is nothing the AMA will do, because it's tied in with the government agency. It is too bad that drones aren't protected by the constitution, like our important Second Amendment protects the rights of gun owners. This may end up going to the Supreme Court. And if it does, I really hope the AMA and FAA both lose the deal. The AMA does not amount to a hill of beans, in my opinion, since it decided to become a government body wannabe. An insurance underwriter (which is all the AMA is, essentially) has no business sticking its nose into people's personal affairs.

ira d

03-07-2014 09:49 PM

The 10k fine was way to excessive especaily if this was a first offense, The FAA needs to stop delaying the proposed rules and put something in effect
before they try to get to involved in model planes and or small uas aircraft.

littlecrankshaf

03-08-2014 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW0311
(Post 11754296)

My Fire Department is considering using a quad copter equipped with a Go Pro camera for use during wildland fires and rescue operations. Having a birds eye view for the purpose of making tactical decisions is something we think may be helpful. The images would be used for real time operational decisions and for training. Would this be considered commercial use? Would the firefighter using the copter need to be an AMA member? Would we need permission from the land owner if we were operating on private property? This would be in a special fire district. Would we be considered a government agency and would that make any difference? Got to fly it the other day during some testing. Kind of fun. Definitely a different type of flying. We are aware that this is a hot topic but the real time images, we believe, could be life saving. Should we be expecting a visit from the FAA? I'm not sure that comparing what we want to do and what this gentleman did are the same but i have to wonder none the less. I noted while reading that the FAA is asking government and police agencies to advise them (ask permission) before testing. Does our use differ in their eyes? The images gathered would not be use for any purpose other than training and tactical decisions during any fire-ground operations.

James

Your post is exemplary of our future going forward. We've become to expect un-ending impacts to our freedom...up to the point we really aren't sure what we are allowed to...even if for the best of causes...

littlecrankshaf

03-08-2014 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
(Post 11754332)

It is unfortunate, but the FAA is going for an appeal, and there is nothing the AMA will do, because it's tied in with the government agency. .

I think AMA will continue to side with the Romans...as the fellow was being horse whipped while dragging his cross, AMA threw a rock or two and spat at him to show allegiance...and most of the crowd cheered with great acceptance.

Top_Gunn

03-08-2014 09:17 AM

On the off chance that anyone cares what this case actually held, it doesn't say the FAA can't regulate unmanned aircraft. It just says they need to issue regulations to do that. If they get serious, they could issue emergency regulations next week, though they probably won't. This is not an important case, and it doesn't involve any supposed constitutional right to fly anything without the FAA's permission. We've all known that regulations are coming. This case has nothing at all to do with what those regulations will or can provide.

cj_rumley

03-08-2014 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JW0311
(Post 11754296)

My Fire Department is considering using a quad copter equipped with a Go Pro camera for use during wildland fires and rescue operations. Having a birds eye view for the purpose of making tactical decisions is something we think may be helpful. The images would be used for real time operational decisions and for training. Would this be considered commercial use? Would the firefighter using the copter need to be an AMA member? Would we need permission from the land owner if we were operating on private property? This would be in a special fire district. Would we be considered a government agency and would that make any difference? Got to fly it the other day during some testing. Kind of fun. Definitely a different type of flying. We are aware that this is a hot topic but the real time images, we believe, could be life saving. Should we be expecting a visit from the FAA? I'm not sure that comparing what we want to do and what this gentleman did are the same but i have to wonder none the less. I noted while reading that the FAA is asking government and police agencies to advise them (ask permission) before testing. Does our use differ in their eyes? The images gathered would not be use for any purpose other than training and tactical decisions during any fire-ground operations.

James

What you are considering is a "public" use, rather than commercial, ("civil" in topical FAA releases). I don't think your FD differs from other "public" users of unmanned aircraft you have read about as to being required to ask and be granted permission from FAA. Not easy, but doable, given that hundreds of public service agencies have obtained the necessary certification to use them on an experimental basis, while only 2 commercial users have.
Your application of the technology is a natural, but FAA has lagged badly on getting the regulatory provisions in order that will allow it......they have spent years "getting ready to get ready," and only recently came out with a 'roadmap' for getting the job done.
I don't know what costs are involved in pursuit of getting FAA permission to operate, but expect that it may be a significant burden on your FD budget. Vendors of such systems of course have a vested interest in equipping you, and so are a probably your best source of advice on navigating the regulatory process.

Bozarth

03-08-2014 09:59 PM

[QUOTE=NorfolkSouthern;... An insurance underwriter (which is all the AMA is, essentially) has no business sticking its nose into people's personal affairs.[/QUOTE]

Right on!!! NorfolkSouthern is right on! (Never mind that I was born in Norfolk). I agree with everything you wrote.

Kurt

NorfolkSouthern

03-09-2014 10:37 AM

I have been putting a little more thought into this. The ability to see, and observe, is a basic human right. If a doc writes a prescription for eyeglasses, then you have the right to have the prescription filled, to aid in vision. A drone, when equipped for FPV, aids in vision. It allows the operator to "see and observe" his or her environment. As long as the privacy of individuals is protected (no flying over people's back yards, or around someone's home with the purpose of snooping, harassment, or taking photos/videos, etc, for example) then perhaps, owning an enjoying a drone should be a fundamental right. An amendment to the Constitution, adding drones to parts that guarantee the right to pursue liberty and happiness, including having an aid of vision available to view landmarks, could be added, perhaps.

Then, mandate FPV as a required safety feature, along with a transmitter/receiver that allows full control of the drone even if it goes beyond line of site, along with a "return to home" fail safe. I would be all for it. Green and red navigation lights and little white blinkers are fine with me. People can purchase a nicely manufactured and safety tested drone at retail, and enjoy it freely, without having to resort to an improvised device made from a multitude of parts. We can all be FREE from having to spend BIG money for a pilot and Cessna just to take pictures of a friend's horse stable.

From all the videos I've watched of multi-rotors, along with videos of demos when flown indoors, I have reached the conclusion that drones with FPV are actually SAFER than a standard model plane, when set up properly. They are just more controllable, and predictable, with far better safety options. I say, run roughshod over the FAA and AMA with a Constitutional amendment. Neither of them will do a dang thing to allow technology to take its course, and improve our lives.

JohnShe

03-09-2014 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
(Post 11755466)

I have been putting a little more thought into this. The ability to see, and observe, is a basic human right. If a doc writes a prescription for eyeglasses, then you have the right to have the prescription filled, to aid in vision. A drone, when equipped for FPV, aids in vision. It allows the operator to "see and observe" his or her environment. As long as the privacy of individuals is protected (no flying over people's back yards, or around someone's home with the purpose of snooping, harassment, or taking photos/videos, etc, for example) then perhaps, owning an enjoying a drone should be a fundamental right. An amendment to the Constitution, adding drones to parts that guarantee the right to pursue liberty and happiness, including having an aid of vision available to view landmarks, could be added, perhaps.

Then, mandate FPV as a required safety feature, along with a transmitter/receiver that allows full control of the drone even if it goes beyond line of site, along with a "return to home" fail safe. I would be all for it. Green and red navigation lights and little white blinkers are fine with me. People can purchase a nicely manufactured and safety tested drone at retail, and enjoy it freely, without having to resort to an improvised device made from a multitude of parts. We can all be FREE from having to spend BIG money for a pilot and Cessna just to take pictures of a friend's horse stable.

From all the videos I've watched of multi-rotors, along with videos of demos when flown indoors, I have reached the conclusion that drones with FPV are actually SAFER than a standard model plane, when set up properly. They are just more controllable, and predictable, with far better safety options. I say, run roughshod over the FAA and AMA with a Constitutional amendment. Neither of them will do a dang thing to allow technology to take its course, and improve our lives.

So you think that any moron, with no training or practice, can take a camera equipped toy multirotor and fly it wherever he wants for any reason.

Should he be allowed to fly it over people or automobile traffic, or homes or buildings?
Should he fly it as far as he wants? What about range limitations?
What about wind conditions?
What about the reliability of the toy multirotor?
Tell me, from your vast store of knowledge, does the camera provide the full range of vsion that humans have?
How far around his toy can he peer?
How high up can he see?
What about seeing below or behind the toy?
Do you comprehend that a real reliable and safe commercial drone has never been built or certified?
Do you comprehend, that when such systems are available, they will cost thousands of dollars or more?
Do you understand that the necessary training to operate the drones successfully and safely will cost thousands of dollars and take hundreds of hours both in classroom and in the air?

I don't think you realize that military drones are being operated right at the ragged edge of our technological capability. There are hundreds of problems being overcome constantly. They are incredibly difficult to build, maintain and operate. They crash far more often that you realize. they completely miss their targets. They are costing us millions perhaps billion of dollars to develop,. maintain and operate. And, they are not toys.

littlecrankshaf

03-10-2014 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe
(Post 11755828)

So you think that any moron, with no training or practice, can take a camera equipped toy multirotor and fly it wherever he wants for any reason.

We need to get busy with tons of new laws and restrictions instead of simply holding people responsible for their actions.

Oh, they've been very busy making rules for accommodation of morons at all levels of governance, including our private organization and many of its associated clubs. Morons rule in our society. People responsible for their own actions have become a shunned fringe group, usually living out in the boondocks.

I find the reporting to be substandard. It attempts to equate model aviation with commercial drones. It doesn't differentiate between irresponsible behavior and responsible behavior. It seems to glorify these idiots and sociopaths.

These scam artist are operating machines of unknown reliability using questionable flying skills, if any all. They are a danger to us all.

I find the reporting to be substandard. It attempts to equate model aviation with commercial drones. It doesn't differentiate between irresponsible behavior and responsible behavior. It seems to glorify these idiots and sociopaths.

These scam artist are operating machines of unknown reliability using questionable flying skills, if any all. They are a danger to us all.

I truly don't see how the commercial operator was doing anything wrong. I watched the video, and he was far, FAR away from any populated area. He was in the middle of a field of sunflowers. The FAA wants to make criminals out of people who are merely making a living, doing their work in places that a HUGE hunk of full-scale metal can't reach anyway. Was he chasing an airliner with his 48 ounce quad copter? I think not. Would you like the AMA to join up with Moms Demand Action and MAIG? Seems like there are some Fuds who would like that.

JohnShe

03-10-2014 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
(Post 11756355)

I truly don't see how the commercial operator was doing anything wrong. I watched the video, and he was far, FAR away from any populated area. He was in the middle of a field of sunflowers. The FAA wants to make criminals out of people who are merely making a living, doing their work in places that a HUGE hunk of full-scale metal can't reach anyway. Was he chasing an airliner with his 48 ounce quad copter? I think not. Would you like the AMA to join up with Moms Demand Action and MAIG? Seems like there are some Fuds who would like that.

Good one, you pick out one instance that suits your argument and fail to acknowledge the existence of the guys flying their toys over your house, your school, your workplace your streets and roads. Yeah, toy flying is safe anywhere. And pigs can fly them.

All the FAA has to do is wait for someone to be injured, killed or some serious property damage and say "I told you so!" But the FAA has too much of a sense of responsibility for that. They will contest the decision, work faster to produce rules that will satisfy the judge and continue protecting our nations air space.

cj_rumley

03-10-2014 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe
(Post 11756505)

Good one, you pick out one instance that suits your argument and fail to acknowledge the existence of the guys flying their toys over your house, your school, your workplace your streets and roads. Yeah, toy flying is safe anywhere. And pigs can fly them.

Well, that same instance is one that you condemned as glorifying idiots and sociopaths and scam artists with questionable flying skills that are a danger to us all. You saw a whole lot of malice in that video that I (and NorfolkSouthern) somehow missed.

JohnShe

03-10-2014 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
(Post 11756593)

Well, that same instance is one that you condemned as glorifying idiots and sociopaths and scam artists with questionable flying skills that are a danger to us all. You saw a whole lot of malice in that video that I (and NorfolkSouthern) somehow missed.

Not malice, just incredible stupidity. These idiots are playing with matches and they either don't realize it or don't care.

jtotten

03-10-2014 03:59 PM

The faa posted their position on feb 26, and just revised it on March 7, presumably now reflecting their position after the ruling.

Are any of you commercial pilots that are for this? This UAV/UAS pilot (oh by the way he is not a US citizen) got lucky. The fine should have stuck. I hope the FAA's appeal goes thur and the fine sticks! He is careless and was compensated for the video from this flight. Therefore the FAA should regulate it. Flying a drone/UAV/UAS/RC aircraft in a commercial operation should have standards above what us hobbyist have. IMHO there should be at a minimum some sort of training and licensing requirements for the pilot and inspections for the aircraft. Go ahead and flame me. But until you have been involved in a near miss between a full scale and drone/UAV/UAS/RC aircraft you really don't have a leg to stand on. I don't want any more regulations but you have a bunch of idiots pushing the limits with what they can get away with flying.